26 Apr

Michelle Hints That New Supreme Court Justices Are Political Stooges

                                       

First Lady Obama presumes that her husband’s Supreme Court Nominees will protect political rights not enumerated in the Constitution. She made this remarkable claim at Democrat fundraisers by stressing that Sotomayo and Kagan are indeed political appointees and can be counted on to protect the right to “Love whomever we choose” and “the right privacy”. This mysterious “Privacy” right is presumably a reference to Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, but these nebulous terms are often invoked to mean anything Democrat strategists want them to mean at a later date.

In a typical Michelle Obama statement, her bathos logic maintained its chaotic and barely decipherable cross word puzzle style:

“Let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices, and for the first time in history our daughters and our sons watched three women take their seat on our nation’s highest court.

But more importantly, let us never forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come–on our privacy and our security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here.”

Of course, the appointment of the ACLU lawyer, Ruth Bader Ginzberg was a Clinton appointment and she has since claimed the Constitution to be a flawed document and that we need to look at other countries for laws to guide our judicial process.

Now with the latest political appointments being bragged about as stooges for the Obama regime and the refusal of Kagan to recuse herself from the hearing of the Individual Mandate Clause of Obama Care, the seriousness of the appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan are being viewed with skepticism by people wanting to preserve the integrity of the Constitution.

Ms Obama’s speech was not a collection of off the cuff and extemporaneous remarks, she gave the same speech again at another fundraiser in Detroit. She obviously has sound reasons to believe her decidedly un-American speech claims.

We are now left wondering what these Progressive “Plants” are programed to achieve with their “Love who you choose” clause and what other Progressive objectives they are programmed to pursue or do they await directions from the White House. Does this include children, animals, and multiple partners or can we expect an element of reasonable restraint from political operatives within the Supreme Court.
Michelle seems confident that these justices are in her husband’s pocket.

Michelle has reassured us that her husband’s political operatives believe we should be able to speak freely and worship openly, but then again, maybe political stooges may see that only certain speech and worship are considered to be within the proscribed politically correct boundaries and everything else should be considered offensive. Since the question is bound to arise, how ideologically programmed are these Progressive Stooges in the Supreme Court.

Should women from the Left take pride in the fact that they have a victory with mandated condoms and birth control for college students; therefore, they can play humpy rumpy with even less responsible men and forget that their sisters in many parts of the world are still struggling against mutilation, slavery, forced marriage, childhood marriage, state condoned sexual abuse, and religious sponsored murder. Perhaps these issues are a little too close to a real struggle as well as incongruent and counter productive to the president’s true ideological beliefs, since most of those crimes against routinely happen in the Muslim World and are much more difficult to deal with than the concept of free condoms for college women with healthy libidos.

We should also remember that Ginzberg told the Egyptians trying to write a new Constitution for their new country to forget using the US Constitution as a template; consequently, they are now debating how many hours after a wife dies is a man allowed to have sex with the corpse of his deceased wife. Yes, the Feminist movement should be proud of its progress and its stooges.

YouTube Preview Image

About Skook

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has a personal website skooksjournal.com featuring his personal writings and historical novel type stories.
This entry was posted in ACLU, Anti-Americanism, Constitution, Freedom, Indoctrination, Michelle Obama, political correctness, POWER GRAB!, Privacy Issues and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, April 26th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
| 739 views

14 Responses to Michelle Hints That New Supreme Court Justices Are Political Stooges

  1. CharlieGee says: 1

    The fact that Mrs.Obama can speak such things without a reaction of shock by her audience is further proof that lunacy is contagious even as attempts to erase it from legislative documents proceed.

    ReplyReply
  2. Skook says: 2

    Charlie, an excellent point, and the most obvious. Thank you.

    It is hard to strip away freedom, unless people are complacent and allow a tyranny to become entrenched. Suddenly, the control is absolute and recovering freedom is nearly impossible.

    ReplyReply
  3. johngalt says: 3

    Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, by herself, is worth much more than the entirety of knowledge and justice that the three women in the picture above represent.

    Making law by judicial fiat is just as egregious as Congress passing, and the President signing into law, legislation that clearly violates the Constitution.

    ReplyReply
  4. Mike O'Malley says: 4

    But more importantly, let us never forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come–on our privacy and our security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here.”

    Since we could always “love” whomever we chose I expect that lady Affirmative Action lawyer from Princeton U. actually means :

    and, yes, we can have sex with whomever we choose

    If that is indeed what she means I have a question for the First Lady:
    when you said “whomever” did you mean underage children too?

    ReplyReply
  5. Hard Right says: 5

    Translation: We know the people my husband appointed are those that don’t care what the Constitution says since it’s just a piece or paper to liberals like us.

    ReplyReply
  6. Mike O'Malley says: 6

    @Hard Right:

    I’ll paraphrase Ace-of-Spades: scratch a Prog. and you’ll find “Will to Power”

    ReplyReply
  7. joetote says: 7

    What is amazing is that the left is calling the Court an “extremely activist” court. Wow! Talk about calling the kettle black! Since when is “not” enacting law by judicial fiat and instead adhering to Constitutional limits considered activist? It’s amazing how the left loves a so called activist court when it can’t pass the laws or want a blatantly unconstitutional law upheld yet yells “Holy Crap!” stop the activism when in fact the court is adhering to (Ginsberg and her disdain for the Constitution aside) the basic tenet of the law of the land!

    ReplyReply
  8. Marine72 says: 8

    @Mike O’Malley: Probably so as the NAMBLA contingent are trusted bundlers for the obamination.

    ReplyReply
  9. Smorgasbord says: 9

    Of course, the appointment of the ACLU lawyer, Ruth Bader Ginzberg was a Clinton appointment and she has since claimed the Constitution to be a flawed document and that we need to look at other countries for laws to guide our judicial process.

    Don’t the Supreme Court judges have to swear to uphold the U. S. Constitution when they are sworn in? If they later decide that the document needs to be changed, couldn’t this be considered a breech of contract?

    ReplyReply
  10. Warren says: 10

    Skook, another winner. You say that Michelle Obama said that Sotomayo and Kagan are indeed political appointees. What did you expect from that political hack husband of hers?

    You continue, “…these nebulous terms are often invoked to mean anything Democrat strategists want them to mean at a later date.” Well said!

    ReplyReply
  11. THE SOOTHSAYER says: 11

    Shame is a powerful tool if it can penetrate that shield of black robes.

    There is no RULE that a justice on the SCOTUS must render an opinion on any and all cases so heard by the Court; par example, a justice can self determine that she/he is unqualified fairing ill competence in contested areas of “social justice” where that judge fails to have sufficient expertise. For any judge to render an opinion on matters “way over one’s head” is to decide with an inherent prejudice framed on ignorance. There is only speculation until the decision is codified, collated and printed for publication and presentation to the People but until then those with the power to decide on healthcare must be reminded that they are not versed in the medical arts and sciences, that they are not needed or wanted near any life or death emergency situation, and that excellent medical treatment in clinical office or hospital room is a privilege not a Constitutional right.

    ReplyReply
  12. someone mention children, it come to mind the EGYPT MUSLIM NEW LAW,
    CHILDREN OF 14 CAN BE MARRY, AS OPPOSE TO BEFORE THE LAW WAS OLDER
    are they trying to please the MUSLIMS IN THE USA? BY GETTING THEM A LAW MADE FOR THEM TO SECURE THEIR VOTES,OR TO GIVE THEM WHAT WAS DEMANDED BY THEIR GUESS WHO
    WHERE JUST IN THE WHITE HOUSE A FEW DAYS AGO? THE BROTHERHOOD WITH A DIFFERENT NAME,
    MICHELE SAID LOVE WHOM YOU WANT,COULD MEAN MINORS,

    ReplyReply
  13. Mike O’ Malley
    you did mention the children did she meant ,in a question, it goes with my previous
    comment on the judges ruling what OBAMA want,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  14. Rachel says: 14

    Do we have NO ONE left in government with respect for our Constitution? This is beyond horrifying..it’s downright Twilight Zonish.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>